Is It Real?

[iso_55]

We're winning. How we win to me doesn't matter. At the end of the season the number of wins don't come with caveats or asterisks.

Edited August 18, 2016 by iso_55

[Jaxon]

I, for one, am very optimistic about this team right now, and I'm thoroughly enjoying the current winning streak.   I've been a season ticket holder for many decades, and I've had plenty of ups and downs.    My advice, for those who want it: Enjoy the current winning streak....there will be plenty of opportunities to be sour in the future.  (that goes for life too)

[Y2C]

8 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

We're winning. How we win to me doesn't matter. At the end of the season the number of wins don't come with caveats or asterisks.

You know what though, in a way it has to me.

Yeah, if the Bombers have a W when the clock shows 0:00, doesn't matter to me how that came to be.

But it isn't just the wins, the last 3 games this has looked like a downright competent football team. I was at the Calgary game at IGF and it was men against boys for 90% of the game.

To me it's been the little things, such as Nichols doing a quick fake to the man swinging out of the backfield then hitting Denmark in the back of the endzone against Hamilton.

It is very encouraging to see the Bombers put the boots to someone after being on the other end of it so very many times recently...

[17to85]

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

No it's using the facts to justify the viewpoint. 

It is using things from the past to influence your current perception, ie. not objectivity but an opinion influenced by bias. 

You know if you just accept that you're negative about the team consistently this whole argument will be put to bed. No one cares and everyone knows it so why you gotta fight the truth so hard?

[MyDogHasScheifeles]

Are the Bombers for real? I sure hope so!

Is that defence for real? Yes it is. The d-line is getting better each game and starting to put real pressure on the QB. They are showing that running against them will not be easy. I would say our front 4 are the 3rd maybe 4th best in the league.  Our linebackers are one of the elite groups in the league...maybe top two. Ditto for the back field. I would say they are the best in the CFL but for their inexperience and the big play they tend to give up...but the are the elite ball hawkers of the league.

 Are our special teams for real? Yes they are. Coverage on punts and kickoffs these last few games are the best I have ever seen from a Bomber team.  Fogg is killing the league with a 17.6 punt return avg. and kick returns are slightly above league average. Medlock started slow but is kicking like a fine tuned machine.  This is the best all round special teams unit in the league.

Is our offence for real? Not really. They are what they are. We have a couple weapons...well Harris and a bunch of guys that give it their all but are not elite. They might just be a little better then average to slightly below average with Nichols at the helm. I don't think they will win us to many games on their own but if D and ST play decent they won't need to. Nichols will for the most part be relied to manage games. Nichols has been cleaner/ more savvy in the pocket then Willy and he is doing a good job of identifying single coverage and looking the defence away from the target. O-line has been talked about and are playing great. Our receivers will see an upgrade soon but I only see us keeping 2 of Smith Denmark  or Dressler.  I forsee the NFL cuts bringing us a couple tall options and maybe a burner or two. Overall I see this group is a below average group with a very good OC brings them a 4th or 5th maybe 6th spot in the CFL.

One thing is fore sure watching them play is fun again. 

 

[iso_55]

Three games tells us nothing except we won 3 games. Don't forget in 2014 we were 5-1 to start the season & finished at 6-12. This is what it is... a 3 game winning streak. Before that we were 1-4 & looked All S*H*I*T. This tells me that (1) this team is wildly inconsistent & (2) the wrong qb was starting. Give me a large sample size of 9 games before I make a judgement.  In the meantime, just enjoy the win streak & not worry if it's real or not as we'll know in another 2 months anyway.

Edited August 18, 2016 by iso_55

[Atomic]

Great post MyDogHasScheifeles

[WBBFanWest]

2 hours ago, iso_55 said:

Three games tells us nothing except we won 3 games. Don't forget in 2014 we were 5-1 to start the season & finished at 6-12. This is what it is... a 3 game winning streak. Before that we were 1-4 & looked All S*H*I*T. This tells me that (1) this team is wildly inconsistent & (2) the wrong qb was starting. Give me a large sample size of 9 games before I make a judgement.  In the meantime, just enjoy the win streak & not worry if it's real or not as we'll know in another 2 months anyway.

Ummm, that's just one more game, ya know.

[White Out]

17 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Ummm, that's just one more game, ya know.

I think he meant 9 games as in, 6 more with Nichols as starter.

[MOBomberFan]

8 minutes ago, White Out said:

I think he meant 9 games as in, 6 more with Nichols as starter.

That's also what I assumed.

[iso_55]

42 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Ummm, that's just one more game, ya know.

No nine games after the win streak started... That's when it could be gauged but wtf who cares? Just enjoy the streak foe however long it lasts.

Edited August 19, 2016 by iso_55

[iso_55]

26 minutes ago, White Out said:

I think he meant 9 games as in, 6 more with Nichols as starter.

Thank you! Just how hard is this????? #nitpick #nitpick

[Arnold_Palmer]

4 hours ago, iso_55 said:

Three games tells us nothing except we won 3 games. Don't forget in 2014 we were 5-1 to start the season & finished at 6-12. This is what it is... a 3 game winning streak. Before that we were 1-4 & looked All S*H*I*T. This tells me that (1) this team is wildly inconsistent & (2) the wrong qb was starting. Give me a large sample size of 9 games before I make a judgement.  In the meantime, just enjoy the win streak & not worry if it's real or not as we'll know in another 2 months anyway.

Not to nitpick but 7-11 and you could tell in 2014 we over achieved at 5-1. Nearly every game went down to the wire and we got a few lucky bounces. This season feels different. Our defense is good, our special teams are dominant, and our offense although not spectacular has been good. We've had three straight games where we dictated the temple most of the game, that simply wasn't the case in 2014. I don't think we're favorites to win a grey cup or anything, but we're certainly on our way to being a good football club. I haven't seen football this good since 2011, let's enjoy the ride we have three winnable football games coming up and this will put us into the conversation whether or not we're contenders or not. But I'm a little more hopeful then I was three weeks ago!

[bearpants]

15 hours ago, iso_55 said:

We're winning. How we win to me doesn't matter. At the end of the season the number of wins don't come with caveats or asterisks.

I agree with you... I'm happy if it's a win at 0:00.... but I would argue there's a big difference between our first win in Hamilton and the last 3... that first Ham game, we needed 6 turnovers to win... the last three wins have been more complete team games... I would suggest 3 or 4 of those 12 turnovers we got would be considered garbage time stats anyways...

[Dragon37]

46 minutes ago, bearpants said:

I agree with you... I'm happy if it's a win at 0:00.... but I would argue there's a big difference between our first win in Hamilton and the last 3... that first Ham game, we needed 6 turnovers to win... the last three wins have been more complete team games... I would suggest 3 or 4 of those 12 turnovers we got would be considered garbage time stats anyways...

Last two games, imo. They needed a pick late in the Edmonton game to seal that one. However, it was a much stronger game than the first Hammy win.

[Guest J5V]

My concern so far this year is that our wins had an element of good fortune to them, not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's all about perspective. What I really like about our current win streak is that it should infuse our team with some much needed confidence and confidence goes a long way towards winning. Ya gotta believe and this team is believing it. Why? I think it's because of guys like Medlock, Nichols, Bond, Hardrick, and a few others. They're showing confidence in the locker room and on the field and that's contagious. Nothing worse for a team than a fragile psyche and that guy is now kicking for the Argos. 

[TBURGESS]

55 minutes ago, bearpants said:

I agree with you... I'm happy if it's a win at 0:00.... but I would argue there's a big difference between our first win in Hamilton and the last 3... that first Ham game, we needed 6 turnovers to win... the last three wins have been more complete team games... I would suggest 3 or 4 of those 12 turnovers we got would be considered garbage time stats anyways...

We got 6 turnovers in each of 3 games so it would 2 or 3 be out of 18, not out of 12 and we likely don't get into garbage time without getting so many turnovers in the first place. For example... If Masoli doesn't throw a pick 6 on the first play of the game we likely don't score 21 points in the first 10 minutes to start the rout. 

16 hours ago, 17to85 said:

It is using things from the past to influence your current perception, ie. not objectivity but an opinion influenced by bias. 

You know if you just accept that you're negative about the team consistently this whole argument will be put to bed. No one cares and everyone knows it so why you gotta fight the truth so hard?

I use things from the past to explain my negativity in the past. Ignoring the negatives just so you can be positive isn't objective. Any thinking person would be negative when the team doesn't make the playoffs for 4 straight years and then goes 1-4 to start this year. I didn't even go negative until we fired Berry and replaced him with Kelly and it's been mostly horrible ever since.

I certainly understand why you don't accept the obvious. If you did, you couldn't use your 'positivity' as an excuse to call me out on my 'negativity' and that's a big part of your forum persona.  It's pretty obvious that you care deeply about my level of negativity, because you post about it all the time. 

[wbbfan]

17 hours ago, iso_55 said:

We're winning. How we win to me doesn't matter. At the end of the season the number of wins don't come with caveats or asterisks.

the way you win and lose is the difference between long term sustained winning, a franchise turn around, and 2014s return to mediocrity. The fact we lost close scores despite being heavily out played in a few aspects of the game early one leads one to believe it is for real. Teams that are turning it around are usually in that lose close games badily niche. A team that ends the season with less wins and squeezes in can often be in a much better position then a team that dominated early and fell arse backwards into the play offs too. There are asterisks in all sports, but they wont over come a lack of loses. 

6 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

We got 6 turnovers in each of 3 games so it would 2 or 3 be out of 18, not out of 12 and we likely don't get into garbage time without getting so many turnovers in the first place. For example... If Masoli doesn't throw a pick 6 on the first play of the game we likely don't score 21 points in the first 10 minutes to start the rout. 

I use things from the past to explain my negativity in the past. Ignoring the negatives just so you can be positive isn't objective. Any thinking person would be negative when the team doesn't make the playoffs for 4 straight years and then goes 1-4 to start this year. I didn't even go negative until we fired Berry and replaced him with Kelly and it's been mostly horrible ever since.

I certainly understand why you don't accept the obvious. If you did, you couldn't use your 'positivity' as an excuse to call me out on my 'negativity' and that's a big part of your forum persona.  It's pretty obvious that you care deeply about my level of negativity, because you post about it all the time. 

Certain types of fans become soo averse to losing that any thing moderately realistic or pessimistic is treated like an attack on the team and fandom in general. While any thing involved in winning is clearly  worthy of all exaltation. Objective is seldom involved  when it comes to the masses after a long toxic period. 

[17to85]

38 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

 

I use things from the past to explain my negativity in the past. Ignoring the negatives just so you can be positive isn't objective. Any thinking person would be negative when the team doesn't make the playoffs for 4 straight years and then goes 1-4 to start this year. I didn't even go negative until we fired Berry and replaced him with Kelly and it's been mostly horrible ever since.

I certainly understand why you don't accept the obvious. If you did, you couldn't use your 'positivity' as an excuse to call me out on my 'negativity' and that's a big part of your forum persona.  It's pretty obvious that you care deeply about my level of negativity, because you post about it all the time. 

You are missing the point, all I am arguing is your claim of being objective. You clearly are not, almost no one is really objective here. Just accept that you're a negative person and that you are once again arguing a losing cause and we can go back to debating whether or not this team is for real. I don't care if you're a negative person, all I care about is the argument itself. 

[LimJahey]

it doesn't really matter, the fans of this team are going to lose their mind the next time we lose a game anyways.

[HardCoreBlue]

35 minutes ago, LimJahey said:

it doesn't really matter, the fans of this team are going to lose their mind the next time we lose a game anyways.

Your profile pic would be what that would look like . . .. And if it is an actual pic of you, my apologies. :-)

[TBURGESS]

52 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

You are missing the point, all I am arguing is your claim of being objective. You clearly are not, almost no one is really objective here. Just accept that you're a negative person and that you are once again arguing a losing cause and we can go back to debating whether or not this team is for real. I don't care if you're a negative person, all I care about is the argument itself. 

I'm not missing your point. I'm saying you're wrong.

[LimJahey]

27 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Your profile pic would be what that would look like . . .. And if it is an actual pic of you, my apologies. :-)

LimJahey lets the liquor do the thinkin' 

[do or die]

After a few more gulps, last night.....have concluded that there are far worse things.....than arguing about how the Bombers are winning football games....

Carry on.

 

[bearpants]

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

We got 6 turnovers in each of 3 games so it would 2 or 3 be out of 18, not out of 12 and we likely don't get into garbage time without getting so many turnovers in the first place. For example... If Masoli doesn't throw a pick 6 on the first play of the game we likely don't score 21 points in the first 10 minutes to start the rout. 

I meant the 12 turnovers in the 2 most recent wins (against Tor and Ham)... For example in the weather delay game, we had a pick and a turnover on downs, both with less than 5 mins to go, that had no effect on the game... I clearly stated we needed 6 to win the game in Hamilton... we only had 2 turnovers in the Edmonton game...